I realize this retired Phoenix cop's opinion is worthless because he's the son of a man who was "illegal" at one point, but he's got some interesting things to say. I also realize that the things I post that challenge our conservative posters are "uninteresting", so I don't expect them to comment.

About a shooting several years ago:

Quote:

All three suspects were illegal immigrants, and there was $7,000 worth of cocaine in the glove box of their car and a shotgun in the trunk.

"You had people calling the radio talk shows to take their shots," Davila told me back then. "It started with illegal aliens, and then it was, ‘Let's send all the Mexicans back.' "

His officers were on edge too, and Davila — immigrant, cop, peacemaker — found himself trying to keep the neighborhood from blowing.

"I told people that it's not whites or Hispanics who killed Marc," he said back then. "It's drug-dealing cop killers. The issue isn't ethnicity — it's crime and drugs."

And something interesting:

Quote:

"One thing we worked on year in and year out was to get the trust and confidence of people who are undocumented, because as witnesses and as victims, we need to talk to them," Davila said. "We can't do that if they fear being deported."

Timing is everything, though, and for some in the party it seemed that they had been transported back to the bad old days after 1994. Proposition 187, which would have cut state services to illegal immigrants, is a cautionary tale, an issue that was popular initially but has had woeful repercussions among the voters that now matter.

Although it was invalidated by the courts, the measure is blamed by independent analysts and Republicans for cementing an image of the party as one controlled by and for older whites — mostly men.

In its aftermath, Latinos, the state's fastest-growing demographic group, have aligned themselves in huge numbers with Democratic candidates, a significant shift from pre-187 trends. Independent voters — another fast-growing group — have recoiled as well, and the party suffered image-wise among women too.

Of course, I'm going to support anything that undercuts Republican support.

i think the biggest issue involved with this entire arizona debate is the fact that partisan politics have gotten so bad in this country that it has more or less incapacitated the federal government from actually accomplishing anything when it comes to this issue... so because of that, some wackadoodle hardline republicans who are fed up with the problems and lack of solutions come up with a ridiculous law like this one, and because they have the power in arizona, the law passes.

hopefully some good can come from this... and that good being that the federal government gets off their ass and does something about a very real problem.

For the uninformed, which save a few have posted in this thread ignorantly:

Quote:

Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law
Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:

Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)

Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)

Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.

Reality vs. Myth: SB1070

Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.

Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.

The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.

Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows.

Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.

Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.

Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"

A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's licence card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.

The SB1070 provision in question reads:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.

Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket.The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.

Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.

The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).

With all the ignorant comments that have been bantered about, esp my BVS, I thought I should post this.
BVS and most posters do not live in Az., but attempt to pose as experts on this message board.

I appreciate the more neutral or thoughtful comments by Indy and
U2387.

People need to understand the drug wars from our neighboring country have poured out onto our city streets. We've asked the Fed Govt to do something about it, and they haven't. 3 cops have been killed by by illegals, even a peaceful rancher giving an illegal water in the desert near his home recently was murdered- thus prompting the bill.

And before any moron claims "See you're just after the Mexicans", you're wrong. We deported a illegal Canadian recently that had 3 felony warrants against him, so don't even try to going there.

I've already answered this, but you're wrapped up in your own thoughts to recognize it, it appears.

That particular Federal Law is being ignored by the Washington here, so we needed an extra tool for our own safety. We're doing what the federal is refusing to do for us.

You're not opposed to that are you, law abiding people trying to protect themselves ?

<>

You're ignoring your own information.

Quote:

The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law

How is this an extra tool? Laws are not passed in order to remind law officers of the law. Memos can do that. Local law enforcers are already suppose to be contacting federal enforcers. So how is this doing what the federal is refusing to do? You don't seem to grasp this. This will change nothing.

This was written for one purpose and one purpose only to get the tea bag vote, that's what I'm opposed to, writing law for political agendas.

well... one can say that arizona is doing what the federal government is refusing to do in that it is trying to solve a very serious problem that has the residents of the state fed up.

not that it's a good solution, or one that should stay... but because the federal government refuses to come together and come up with a real, viable solution to this problem, arizona took things into their own hands and came up with this.

it's easy for us sitting far away to complain about what they've done. i, for one, don't like the law at all and would like the federal government to step in and come up with a more permanent solution that doesn't leave so much to interpretation.

that said... i can certainly understand how people who live with the constant fear of violent criminals would be ok with taking action, even if the abuse of civil liberties that could be a side effect is not something that they neccesarily would normaly agree with. i mean i read a story yesterday about a deputy being shot be a drug smuggler with an AK-47. that's some serious shit right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

Current Administration has chosen to ignore the law, we're left to enact legal ways to defend ourselves.

<>

that's not fair, as the problem existed during the previous administration, and they didn't solve it, either.

i would also argue that arizona didn't take steps to solve it themselves under the bush administration because they did not want to step on the toes of the incumbent republican president, whereas they now no longer have that concern.

it's easy for us sitting far away to complain about what they've done.

My point exactly.

Quote:

well... one can say that arizona is doing what the federal government is refusing to do in that it is trying to solve a very serious problem that has the residents of the state fed up

not that it's a good solution, or one that should stay... but because the federal government refuses to come together and come up with a real, viable solution to this problem, arizona took things into their own hands and came up with this.

exactly right.

Quote:

that's not fair, as the problem existed during the previous administration, and they didn't solve it, either.

Correct, and it's gotten worse-it's turned into a crisis.

Also, remember this Administration is on record as saying that "a crisis is good thing to exploit, to use it to our advantage"..so, one can do the math.

Quote:

that said... i can certainly understand how people who live with the constant fear of violent criminals would be ok with taking action, even if the abuse of civil liberties that could be a side effect is not something that they neccesarily would normaly agree with. i mean i read a story yesterday about a deputy being shot be a drug smuggler with an AK-47. that's some serious shit right there.

Good example, however I would stop at the abuse of civil liberties, a civilian toting an AK 47 has just gave up those liberties as I understand the law, and thanks for your input.

Current Administration has chosen to ignore the law, we're left to enact legal ways to defend ourselves.

First of all it's not the "current administration", secondly a new law does not force local law enforcement to this.

You really don't seem to understand this issue, otherwise you wouldn't make such an ignorant statement. This has been an issue for most administrations including and probably worse at Reagan and Bush II.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

Laughable.

You really are clueless. How does this law change anything? Please tell me. What can Arizona cops do that they couldn't do and should have done before, please do tell, oh informed one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

We'll see, I think you're wrong, along w most Arizonans and Americans according to polls.

Polls? What are you talking about? How does a poll effect what a law is supposedly suppose to change? Man, you have no grasp...

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

No it wasn't, I cited the reasons, and you're ignoring them.

Your "reasons" make no sense and are very ignorant of the situation. You haven't yet explain how this law will actually change anything. When a cop goes out on duty today what will be different? Answer that and you'll have your answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

So says you, but you don't live here-so you speak from ignorance.

That's right, I live in TX we don't have any immigration issues

Who speaks from ignorance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

In the end, we all need to ask ourselves a very simple question:

Are we on the side of law keepers, or law breakers?

Word.

This really isn't the issue. The issue is the reason FOR the law, which you have failed at every attempt to explain.

How is this administration doing anything different than the last 10 administrations ?

Oh wait, that's right, it's a black man running this administration and teabaggers don't like people of colour.....

as much as there may be a racist element in the tea party (as there is a racist element in just about every group... i'm sure there are racists on interference, doesn't make interference racist. anyhoo...), i believe those wackadoodles would be protesting with the same anger if the person who was doing all the same things obama was doing was whitey mcwhiterson.

it's an ideological problem more than a racial problem. nobody says the frige left anarchists are racists against old white men.

as much as there may be a racist element in the tea party (as there is a racist element in just about every group... i'm sure there are racists on interference, doesn't make interference racist. anyhoo...), i believe those wackadoodles would be protesting with the same anger if the person who was doing all the same things obama was doing was whitey mcwhiterson.

it's an ideological problem more than a racial problem. nobody says the frige left anarchists are racists against old white men.

I'd be willing to bet that the first rally, when Obama was only in office a few months... would not have taken place if it were McCain even though everything else remained the same. Most of the Tea Party couldn't even tell me why they were protesting back then(most can't even now), I think a lot of it was racially motivated. Maybe not so much "I hate black people" type of racism, but more "my status as a white man" may change type of racism.

Which I think is the motivation behind a lot of this issue, when I hear "speak American", "my kid will attend a 2/3 hispanic kindergarten class", "they will make this mini-mexico", "Arizona's problem is there are too many latinos" I know the motivation isn't just that they are here illegally, for most of their fears will not change if they were all legal.